Bigotry and inequality.

People are constantly being classified as belonging to groups, such as race, age, gender, etc. I believe that making an issue of the differences between the quality of life of those groups rather than difference is the quality of life between individuals is always bigotry except when it’s an issue concerning legal matters. That should be a different issue.

I’m aware that separating bigoted legal matters from other matters related to bigotry is difficult being that the law is very intertwined with most aspects of day to day life, I’ll let others try to sort that out being that I know little of legal philosophy. I’ll jump to the assumption that it can be sorted out in my following argument which only applies to general bigotry. If it can’t, then I admit the following argument is negated.

The biggest issue against bigotry is how it affects equality. Equality, not just in law, but in general quality of life was and is seemingly the goal of most of civil rights movements, but equality between groups of people doesn’t imply individual equality. There are several factors that determine the quality of life of an individual; health, income, opportunities, respect, circumstance, the work to rewards ratio, etc.

To state what I hope is beyond obvious to most; a group of people that is considered in the minority or under privileged always has many exceptions of people within that group who have a much higher quality of life than most people in the group considered privileged. And the reverse is true as well, the group considered privileged has many examples of people who’s quality of life is much lower than most people in the group considered unprivileged.

For one who wishes to promote true equality they must start with all the factors taken as a whole, with the goal of promoting the overall quality of life of individuals. They may focus on an individual aspect of inequality or a group that is prone to certain inequalities. But that focus should only be done tentatively if one wants to avoid bigotry. The goal shouldn’t be a cause that one wants to accomplish to better one group, especially if its at the expense of another. The goal should be to change causes as necessary in order to make sure the true goal of individual equality is achieved.

Of course that is easier said than done. In principal I really don’t have an issue with people who find a cause championing one group and stay with it, it is only natural to do so. My issue is with the way the term bigotry is used.

As I said, addressing a legal inequality between groups is not bigotry, and neither is just promoting the welfare of a group. But, when one promotes the welfare of one group at the expense of another group it is bigotry even if it promotes the overall well being of society. Promoting the overall well being of society seems to be synonymous with the greater good. In other words its hard to say that that manner of bigotry is wrong. It certainly could be wrong in the mind of the individuals suffering from a low quality of life in the group considered privileged if they have to sacrifice more of their quality of life to individuals in the group considered under privileged.

Unlike bigotry done outside of group actions, such as when one uses a derogatory term or refuses to make friends with people they classify under certain groups, groups promoting their cause has at least the potential to do good. But bigotry is bigotry. The key of my arguments is to show why it is wrong to emphasize one type of bigotry while not recognizing the existence of other types of bigotry. Its about moral high ground. If one is supporting a cause for one group at the expense of another, unless they know that they are promoting the greater good as well as their groups interests, they have no moral high ground.

I know it would be helpful to give actual examples as well as the general terms I’ve been using such as ‘groups’ and ‘causes’, but I’ve already written to much, so if a discussion follows I give what opinions I have of actual examples.



Could you possibly say what you wanted to say in one sentence?[/size]


Everyone is focused on judging the good and bad rather than being focused on finding out how to judge the good from the bad.

[i]“Is this germ a good germ or a bad germ?”

“Well, the probability is…”
“All germs are bad.”
“It is good to have a lot of germs so they can compete and keep each other weak.”[/i]

How about get a microscope first and look at the germ so that it can be assessed without so much guessing.
Do a little scientific style experimentation so that you have tested results concerning a few circumstances.
Decide upon the goal for discerning which results are preferred.

And THEN maybe make your judgment.

Shut up.

HAha… :laughing:

I tend to agree judgements should follow an induvidual rule. Sadly, the focus on groups distracts from the actual issues and actually serves to breed disconnect between the so labeled ‘groups’ – Each wants their respective rights; gay marriage, smoking indoors, etc, but the grouping serves certain groups and when it’s all said and done, the induvidual loses out, we all lose.

[size=70]Bill, you remind me of this guy from that was segregated to the rant lounge. I forgot the name, but your posts, and your penchant for post editing are practically identical. I’m not interested in what you have to say, predictable as it is in that view. I simply don’t have the energy to come across it or read it anymore, so I’m sure you won’t mind if I add you to my ignore list. I do hope you’re at least having fun… Peace.[/size]

This is a good example of when I said there is not such thing in Philosophy as trolling- look at the three people who responded initially to this. Yes, it’s a attempt at trolling, but a discussion that produces spontanteous behavior is one the produces groups if a segment acts one way, and another another way. I always keep such comments in mind when discussing philosophy- your going to miss quite a few people given any kind of approach or arguement.

So… we’re down to abstracted categorically arranged differences as a means to social conditioning, and this is the basis of the ethical platform in which your judging all other ethics?

Okay then. Everyone who is aware of categorical differences between groups is Bigoted. Cows, and other herd animals, are not bigoted because they are not conscious of much of anything beyong cow-not cow. No… they know lion, they know wolves, they know sexuality for at least a period of time during the breeding season. There is a sense of reactionary alturism when a herd tried to corner and trample a predator, but it’s not consistent beyond the scene of the immediate chaos… as evidence the structure of cattle herding operations and slaughter houses. Distant screaming is okay.

So… cattle still form groups. Humans do to… even uniformly identicle military units.

So… yes, someone doing a good or alturistic act in your system could still be bigoted, but bigotry loses it’s negative connotations. It’s just another word that changed it’s meaning, such as Terrific meaning something horrible but now something good.

Is equality linked to the presence or absence of Bigotry? Perhaps. Likely even that case, but you haven’t shown it to be the case, or even undesireable, nor a means to changing this situation, nor a discription of how such a new order would operate, and how Bigoted people would be treated.

I for one have no desire to cut off the extra finger off of people with eleven fingers, nor care for a extra one to be grown on me. However, I wouldn’t take offense to a meeting in town of people with extra fingers in and of itself. Perhaps I am bigoted for not caring, or caring… I dunno.


Since you say all you want to say in about one word, I think you should consider the irony of you asking someone to express themselves more concisely. Monsieur le Robot.


Incidentally that’s troll 101, post that and it annoys the hell out of people, there is trolling, but in this day and age it’s become a little more sophisticated than claiming Hitler was great.

My philosophy about trolls is controversial though, I think ignoring or not feeding them only makes them stronger. Feed the trolls it’s damn sure entertaining pretending you are getting trolled, why not enjoy them?



[size=120]“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”


[size=112]I think it's kind of funny.

I ask a simple, straight forward question, perhaps to help the original poster themselves and what do I receive as a response?
Bigotry and inequality.[/i]

Thank you...


Einstein never said that what he did say was if you are a bit of a moron, just make very simple posts like you always do and then post a picture, this will inevitably lead to crunk.

If you don’t get what I said can I introduce you to my love, you:


Not that it matters but actually the quote is attributed to Einstein…and possibly others.

You may be missing the point I was attempting to make.[/size]


Thanks to all who responded.

Bill, I can easily summarize the OP in one sentence, but if you misunderstand it please refer back to the OP:

I don’t like it when bigots imply that other people are bigots without recognizing their own bigotry first.

I understand the issue your making with germs, but I don’t know how to connect the analogy to the OP, could you explain?

W.C., I basically agree with all that, but to be very technical and perhaps overly literal, I don’t think we all nessesarily lose because of group interests, it depends on the circumstance. The American civil rights movement had a lot of groups expressing their interests and I’m sure it was sometimes at the detriment to society, but overall the civil rights movement was best for society.

I admit that in part I was unclear. I probaly should have left out the last two sentences in the above quote being that they discuss issues of ethics outside of my argument. I beileve in moral subjectivity and when I used the word ‘wrong’ I’m know I’m being somewhat ambiguous so as to avoid writing five paragraphs on my position on morality. I wasn’t meaning to make any kind of all encompassing judgement on ethics, I was only concerned in my post with the ethics of the use of the term bigotry.

Yes, bigotry can seem right in some circumstances to some people.

But, not right to everyone (therefore moral subjectivity). I’m not suggesting, though, that the term ‘bigotry’ itself should lose its negative connatation. In some circumstances it should be viewed as using a ‘wrong’ to make a ‘right’ a descision that people in many types of diffuclt situations must often consider.

Basically, besides simply saying what I dislike, my only purpose here as far as making change would be to show how complex the issue of bigotrry really is, in order to make it used less often. Bigotry is just one of many terms with negative connotations, I imagine the term that has the most negative connotations of all is ‘evil’, few people seem to be willing to rule out the existance of evil entirely (and perhaps they shouldn’t) but the word is likely being used less due to people explaining how complex the issue really is. (I failed to grasp the analogy in your last paragraph.)

Yes… at the source of it, Bigotry was a double standard, but not just a double standard, but one that takes advantage of Masochistic tendencies. Half the people in this thread are trying to exploit what they preceive to be Masochistic tendencies in you, but are not inherently bigoted, as they in general prefer mayhem over intuitively grasping the thinking underneath rhetoric and are consistent in this mindset. They took a philosophical tool of rhetoric and took it to be a pleasurable culture of discourse.

The double standard old fashion bigots actually would maintain a solid double standard, informing and telling others the world is one way, and you of this persuasion, and therefor are of this method, while knowing it wasn’t a way they themselves held to. They had a seperate system of values for a seperate lifestyle. Think of a White Southern preacher to Slaves telling them that stealing was wrong, back in the era when we were still importing slaves into the south. That’s fucking bigoted as fuck if he was a slave owner himself. It’s not is he wasn’t though. His whiteness only in one circumstance would be a characteristic of bigotry- something we could categorize as ‘white bigot slaveowner’. However, you drop slave owner out of the persuasion, and the very reason for him being there changes pretty dramatically, if he felt the preaching the word of his god was important even to these slaves held in such a lowly condition. There is a level of hermeneutic evaluation required.

This is a common human condition, and I see it in myself as well as everyone else that I learn to any appreciable depth. It’s just part of our consciousness… we don’t think most ideas out. That vast majority of our thought processes end abruptly and are less than aspiring. The average person is a shithead, not a saint. The average saint knows that even they are shitheads more often than not, and set out to correct this. The methodologies differ widely, and are the basis of our systems of ethics and logic to this day.

It’s just categorization. As deeply annoying as it is in America to see everyone running around on the left screaming racism in regards to stuff that never was racism before- wouldn’t rationally be throught as such a generation or two ago and wouldn’t get Fredrick Douglas to bat a discerning eye at, much less actually discuss problems of culture produced from voluntary racial segragation, which is a very real but now untouchable concern in our society… or the right in bashing anyone in poverty as a inherent threat to our economy in assuming they only want more destructive taxation (which is realistic statistically, but isn’t the motivation of the individual- which a solution to poverty and getting out of a depression has to examine) and rules designed to further stagnate or flounder business and as a result the entirity of the economy… it’s a sign that we’re cognitively advancing.

Both sides of the political spectrum hit a rhetorical bedrock, and neither side will be able to push forward without the other… if they try, severe societal and economic destruction will result. We don’t need to solve racism or economics at this time, but the logical process both sides use in the first place that lead to this stagnation. It’s not a bad thing that both sides are in a position to express themselves coherently enough to counter the other in literally every aspect… means we’re following a debating policy of reactive alternativism… we always seek to grasp the ‘other’ well enough to derive a alternative to their position.

The end result is rather absurd… if you follow either given parties platform. One demands socialism, because people are understandable insecure, and Socialism has magic in it that fixes everything. You open up this package, marked Socialism… sprinkly it on, and it fixes fucking anything. Then you have another side that notes this childish psychological layover from our collective youth when Mommy could fix anything for us, and point out historically whenever we tried it, or anyone else, very bad results happened- much worst than currently, and lots of pain and death happened. They then take a look at the past, see people succeeded there, and demand a return to it, saying it is life/good, and the Socialist alternative is Death/Bad. Then the exchange balances out again, killing fetuses isn’t bad, it’s democracy, and democracy is good, while the army the other side promotes is bad, because it only kills. Then they get turned around and it’s pointed out the Army is good, because it protects and is largely a peace keeper force, and the American Army, even at it’s worst, has produced very good results compared to other militaries- European democracy is a good example, they would all be fascist.

The stupid exchange can go on forever… until we have the ludricious situation that suddenly the way people vote… because the person they are voting for is of a racial group, is now a racist. All that inhereted baggage from shit poor dialectic exchange- dialectics at it’s lowest threshold of standards, is unfortunately remembered. A person voting for person A or B is a racist, unless they themselves are in turn coincidently of the same race. And if that happens, a person of the same race voting for a candidate of the same race, then they are a racial voting block.

Yes… it’s deeply annoying thinking that guys volunarilty trained to kill with grenades and bayonets, and make a procession of it, are in actuality, when the statistics are analyzed, are more pro life as a group- men (as most in the military are men) than females, who abort on a scale much higher than men… but the statistics show this. It’s quite factual, and all the arguement for one way or another still affirms it. I can’t halp but notice in the end of it all they still are holding those grenades, and are still killers, though perhaps not nearly as efficient as your average 19 year old woman is… but that’s the kind of debate we wage, and the end result of it all is the stagnation we’ve reaped. Now, everyone across the ideological spectrum is buckling, and everyone is hurting.

The good news is… this is very simple to change, and it’s all has been to our advantage. We’ve in the end developed a form of morals and values that label ‘death’ as bad, and ‘life’ as good. The fact we lost sight of what that actually means on a existential level in seeing one another as human is besides the point… we’ve become inhuman in the debating process- in our rhetorical approach. We simple need to put emphasis on the human, the real in each of us, once more.

Once this is done… all that bullshit argumenting that lead us to fight over every dead last issue would be in a position to reset… while preserving knowledge on both sides of that issue. We’ve inadvertently gone out and collected a shitload of knowledge and sociological facts of just about everything in our society as a result of this stupid ‘my side your side’ method of checking the other side. The bullshit will be seen though if approach with the understanding humans sit on that other side, and that knowledge can be put to work.

It would be like turning someone from the KKK or the hardcore faction within the Nation of Islam over into dropping the racism. The unexpected result is a person who has a wide range of knowledge of the racial divide, and coincidentally, are in a better position in picking out the sociological elements that cause the divide and antagonism in the first place, perhaps more so than a trained sociologist. The two sides after all spent their life in studying the ‘bad’ in the other and the ‘good’ in them.

We’re going to make a better democracy in the long run from this. However, for the moment, we don’t have much of one. Since Obama is in, I’m involuntarily stuck being a racist everytime I get up in the morning to take a piss in my ‘white toilet’, under my ‘white light’. I drink fruit juice, and I’m a stereotype. This is confirmed when I am told i am a racist when attending a book reading by a black author and never opened up my mouth about shit. Cause I am a racist, because I am the wrong race, not the correct one. Yes… this is deeply inane and annoying. But once the mindset is reset, they will see a guy in enough detail to know he gets up out of bed like them to piss in the morning… reads books and drinks juice, and goes to book readings. That is who I will become, whereas before, had they never given it any effort, I would of been much less. A statistic, something lacking relevancy to their life. I would be something to be taken advantage of as I would be less real, or worst, ignored.

And that brings us back to the insecurity issues. As much as the insecurity is economic, or social… it’s more a growth of our communities up the Needs Pyrimid. There isn’t a group in America who are that bad off as a hundred years ago. We’re finding social issues at the core of our problem. The founding fathers of the US were much more self sufficient ironically in the late 18th century than now, and self actualized a damn good system- very advanced philosophically, the pinnacle of what we can conceivably become. We simply can’t life up to it currently… we’re groping our way back to it since the Civil War, Great Depression, and WW2 kept us knocked down repeatedly. We were in repeated threats of invasion and destruction- all life on earth nearly got wiped out.

Now that things are relaxed a little bit, we’re becoming more selfish. Now that technology is allowing us to talk to anyone, we’re sticking to the little cliques and groups that traditionally given us support. We know unconsicously this isn’t enough to support us in a complex world, so we’re branching out into new ways of living… but not thinking. We’ve carried our old associations and made them stick to new problems and new needs. Hence the wildfire spread of abortion. It’s somehow piggybacked on women’s rights, even though it’s pure infanticide, and another era would of tried to outlaw it under the guise of women’s rights for that very reason, because children were everything to women once. Now… women are told they will be nothing if they have a child at the wrong time, and will kill their own offspring as a result.

In America, it’s gotten so silly at the moment that white conservatives are accused of being racist for noting liberals are heavily targeting black women for abortions. That’s genocide by alot of definitions… but they are racist. So… both sides now just troll one another, and have good reasons to doing so. The motivations to doing so… seeking out a better life, isn’t wrong. Of belonging to a group isn’t wrong. It’s the absurd end results.

I myself, be I called a bigot or not, do not hold to political parties. I take John Adams position that political parties are a inherent threat to democracy. For the moment, the US isn’t a functional democracy. It’s at best a Despotism of one faction over another. Neither side tries to compromise anymore, nor to grow in their believes, or even question them. But we are growing in knowledge- however twistedly we’re applying it. We’re suppost to be a nation of laws, not of laywers… but that’s all we’re becomming. For the time being, we gotta focus on becomming counter-intutively to our creed a nation of men… for only men can see the men in others… to see the brother in one another. This current spectrum of thought is taking the humanity out of us, and seems addicted to becoming ever more irresponsible.

The current emphasis in politics on bigotry is a example of wat not to do. if you want to change it, talk to such people in a way that forces them to see you as a man worthy of a destiny, worthy enough to be a leader, a neighbor, a friend. There will still be a need to categorize, as logistics and leadership requires it, but we need to return to competent use of it. Study of strategy, statecraft, managerial and leadership skills used by the wisest and far seeing minds from every culture around the world, be it antiquity or modern, is a damn good startng place.

The goal of all this is becoming human. I honestly don’t care about equality so long as I can be me, and can seek to live the best life that is possible for me. That was Ghandi’s philosophy, as it is mine. We don’t differ in this respect.

A good exercise when confronted with bigotry… is to just have them list the reasons why they are a bigot in the first place. It might be disturbing, but useful, as it allows you to respond with a more advance mode of reasoning. Some of their reasons might in cases be valid… white boys chain us and drag us on the back of their trucks is a damn good reason to be weary of white boys if it happens consistently, especially if that’s the only time they tend to come around. None the less, introducing the new form of reasoning matters. It will jog their mind, and make them rethink the situation. It can have a accumulative effect in the long run. They might be able to change the underlining situation (if it even is as they think it is, alot of times, it’s a cover for another issue their not brave enough to confront, as they never learned to cope with it- hence the reliance on old values even when we leave our old lifestyle).

This is one of the important aspects of the classical Cynics. It wasn’t the poverty or extremities of life we lead that everyone focused on, but in the freedom it allowed us to evaluate how others viewed society, and hit it at it’s weakest and most absurd. We in out daily lives do alot of crazy, absurd things and call it common place and good. Why do we do this? Anything in particular? Questioning it doesn’t make it inherently wrong… but are we rational in doing so? Are we seeking long term productive changes, or short term predatory gains, that benifit our own poorly understood and self destructive vanity and greed.

Right now, we live in a era when we know from looking at history, one political party isn’t as harmful as the other- Democrats are forcing everyone off a cliff of destruction at a quicker rate than their counterparts… but that’s largely accident, as the republicans tended to be the faction in charge immediately after recovering from the largest of our disasters. When unchecked, starting in a relatively uncharged political enviroment, either side would look to the common good with a more discerning eye to public well being. However, they tended to be the ones who inherited the impulse to do so first. After the civil war, Lincoln tried to give the slaves as well as the only recently pacified southern states a fasttrack way back into the American system. He had the rational inclusive way in, taking it from a position of humanity. He died, and it went to hell, and ever since, both sides flip flopped over whatever issue they had… just the conservatisim of the republicans can point back to sound economics, and sound social relations at a early point, so it has a tendency when they are lining up their views under a common synthesis to equate conservative=life. And life is good. However, the trend began with someone who killed a shitload of Americans and now has a temple built for himself in the center of a secular capital- abraham Lincoln… we do some silly shit sometimes. WW2 a democrat, but we quickly switched to republicans. They came in during a widely uniform period of america… and the checkerboard began again.

But it needs to be noted it’s a checkerboard flip-flopping. Both sides started as well intentioned, good americans. Both sides hold to well informed, yet terribly rude and destructive tendencies in reacting to the other. It also needs to be observed both sides tend to periodically reset. This is very important to not. It’s also important to note the reason why as well. One side is MORE DESTRUCTIVE in tendency than the other. It’s the legacy of the civil war as far as I am concerned. We play this out quite often.

Luckily, as a Cynic- on a selfish level of gloating, this current slow grinding collapse isn’t going to hurt me as much as it’s gonna hurt pretty much everyone else. This stuff only happens when we can’t, or won’t, think our problems through and accept the poor arguemetns of others. WW2 wouldn’t of happened if it wasn’t for the great depression, and that wouldn’t of lasted for so long if it wasn’t for the semi-fascist form of socialism we copied off the Europeans. Had we a more coherent economy, and everyone worked in bettering themselves instead of coming together and doing nothing… we could of given a economic prop to Europe to emulate, or at the very least not be a tempting target to drag into a war. Few countries want a war with India, China, or the US because our economy is too strong, and population too high, and too well educated. Each rests on republicanized (the ideology, not the american political party) principles of social authority, and each has some democratic imput into that process. They wouldn’t of fucked with us or dragged us into the war if we weren’t a tempting target to bully, or thought easy to push aside. It’s largely because we gave up in trying to better the individual self, and lost ourselves in a collective. We stopped trying, and the machinery of state wasn’t up to the challenge. I can walk around pointing this out. However, pointing it out wouldn’t be enough though, if I am to live up to the task of being a philosopher. I have to find solutions, means to applying them.

The bigotry issue presents us with just such a scenerio. It’s a excellent way for the philosopher to insert position themselve into the core of the issue. To push past party platforms, past the insanity, into how we’re each individually conditioned to think. There is justifiable advantage in such thinking processes… it’s quite natural, but not the best, nor is it usually even advantageous, and can be very destructive when carried as far as we are. It’s us climbing back up the needs pyrimid towards the self actualization of our forefathers. We are not there yet.

I know this is a derailment, but just to clarify – I wasn’t trolling, I was telling Bill to shut up. I meant it, wholeheartedly.

Yeah you were doing a service to all mankind, let me say it again STFU Bill.





There’s klingons off the larboard bow. Bear with me on this one, he’s a bot. Or my names not Captain Birdseye.